Gun Control – .

22 State AGs Sign Amicus to 9th Circuit, Asking Court to Strike Mag Ban

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 21:55:27 +0000

22 State AGs Sign Amicus to 9th Circuit, Asking Court to Strike Mag Ban

April 2, 2021 By Dave Workman

Fox News is reporting that the attorneys general in 22 states have signed onto an amicus brief to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the court to “again rule against California’s controversial attempt to ban high-capacity magazines, after the court agreed to reconsider its decision to rule it unconstitutional.”

The case is Duncan v. Becerra, and it may provide an avenue to a Supreme Court consideration about a restrictive gun control law that has affected millions of gun owners in several states.

Initially, District Court Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled the California ban on so-called “high capacity magazines” was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and last year, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to uphold Benitez.

Then the court decided to re-hear the case with an en banc 11-judge panel. It has become a closely-watched case that—depending upon the outcome—could throw gun control into chaos, and not just in California.

Signing onto the 23-page brief are Republican attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, according to the brief.

In their brief, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, they write, “Calling the Affected Magazines “large-capacity” is a misnomer—they often hold only in the range of eleven to fifteen rounds (in no way a large absolute number) and come standard with many of the most popular firearms. There is nothing sinister about citizens bearing the Affected Magazines.”

That’s not how anti-gunners see it. In their opinion, such magazines contribute to higher body counts during mass shootings.

A few lines later, the brief observes, “The Amici States join together on this brief not merely because they disagree with California’s policy choice, but because the challenged law represents a policy choice that is foreclosed by the Second Amendment. States may enact reasonable firearm regulations that do not categorically ban common arms core to the Second Amendment, but the challenged law fails as it is prohibitive rather than regulatory. California should not be allowed to invade its own citizens’ constitutional rights, and this Court should not imperil the rights of citizens in this Circuit and other states with its analysis.”

Magazines holding 20 or 30 rounds are common for AR15-type rifles. The AR15 is frequently called the most popular rifle in America today, with millions of them in private ownership for hunting, competition, home defense, predator control and other legitimate uses. While they have been used in mass shootings, rifles of any kind are used in a fraction of all homicides during any given year, according to data from the FBI annual Uniform Crime Report.

New gun laws with expanded background checks pass the House; Senate to vote soon

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:10:48 +0000

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signs law allowing permitless handgun carry, purchase

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:02:22 +0000

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signs law allowing permitless handgun carry, purchase

Stephen Gruber-Miller Des Moines Register April 2, 2021

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed a law allowing people to buy and carry handguns in Iowa without a permit, fulfilling a longtime goal of gun rights advocates.

The law, which some advocates call “constitutional carry,” will take effect July 1.

“Today I signed legislation that protects the 2nd Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals,” Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement after signing the measure Friday afternoon.

Democrats and gun violence prevention groups say the law will roll back background checks on handgun sales between private citizens. That’s because, under current law, Iowans must pass a background check to obtain a permit to carry or acquire a handgun before they can legally buy one in a private sale.

On a recent call with Everytown for Gun Safety, Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, called on Reynolds to veto the legislation.

“A person could be able to purchase a firearm from a private seller with no background check and then carry that firearm anywhere in public without any type of firearms proficiency training if this bill is adopted,” Wahls said on the call, explaining why he thought Reynolds should veto the measure.

Wahls also pointed to Reynolds’ own prior comments in support of Iowa’s current gun laws.

In 2018 and 2019 Reynolds said Iowa had “reasonable and responsible gun laws on the books” and that she believed the current permit system — which she voted for as a state senator in 2010 — should remain in place.

More:Iowa close to allowing no-permit handgun buying, carry. How would the gun law work?

At a news conference last week, Reynolds said she would “do a thorough evaluation” of the legislation before deciding whether to sign it. She said that approach was consistent with her previous comments.

“I said I thought the policies were good that were in place but I will continue to take a look at new legislation that is presented,” she said. “And I think that’s the appropriate approach, and that’s what we’re doing right now. And I’ve been very consistent in my messaging on that.”

The bill signing comes weeks after two high-profile mass shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, and Boulder, Colorado, drew renewed attention to gun laws.

“We must do more than just pray for those victims and their families, and we must do more to honor their memories than just fly the flags at half-staff,” Wahls said on the call urging Reynolds to veto the legislation. “We have to do everything that we can to prevent this senseless violence in the future.”

More:‘Why does this keep happening?’ Mass shootings in Boulder and Atlanta expose loopholes, weaknesses in gun laws

More information to be shared on people barred from having guns

The law requires courts to report to a state law enforcement database when someone is determined to be ineligible to possess a firearm for mental health reasons, in addition to reporting that to the federal background check system. And it expands what Iowa reports to the federal background check system about people who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law.

Reynolds praised those provisions in her statement, saying the law “takes greater steps to inform law enforcement about an individual’s mental illness, helping ensure firearms don’t end up in the wrong hands.”

“We will never be able to outlaw or prevent every single bad actor from getting a gun, but what we can do is ensure law-abiding citizens have full access to their constitutional rights while keeping Iowans safe,” she said in the statement.

Gun control groups: ‘We will not forget that in 2022’

Reaction to the law came swiftly, with pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association applauding Reynolds and opponents promising to make the law a liability for Reynolds when she faces reelection next year.

Chloe Gayer, a volunteer with Iowa Students Demand Action, a gun violence prevention group that is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, said there’s no reason Reynolds should have signed the law.

“We know — and polling proves — that the vast majority of Iowans, including gun owners, support background checks and requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun,” she said in a statement. “This common-sense law made us safer and now Gov. Reynolds has made Iowa a more dangerous place — we will not forget that in 2022.”

Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann said on Twitter that “despite the misinformation pushed by Democrats and coastal interest groups” the law makes it more difficult for criminals to buy firearms and protects the rights of law-abiding citizens.

“There is only one party committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of Iowans and that’s the Republican Party,” Kaufmann said.

Iowa joins other permitless carry states

Tennessee is also poised to allow adults 21 and older to carry handguns without obtaining a permit. The Tennessee House of Representatives passed the bill on Monday and Gov. Bill Lee is expected to sign it.

In addition to Iowa and Tennessee, at least 15 states already allow concealed carry of handguns without a permit, according to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association and Everytown for Gun Safety. Two of those, North Dakota and Wyoming, allow permitless carry only for their own residents.

In 2020, Iowa law enforcement issued 85,986 nonprofessional permits to carry weapons and 14,960 permits to acquire pistols and revolvers, according to data provided by the Iowa Department of Public Safety. Those numbers were higher than in the previous three years.

In 2021, as of March 23, law enforcement had already issued 41,568 permits to carry and 2,638 permits to acquire.

In 2020, there were 270,614 background checks conducted in Iowa through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is operated by the FBI. That’s the most of any year dating to 1999, according to NICS data.

Federal background checks in Iowa are on pace to break that record in 2021, with 34,313 checks conducted in January and 30,572 in February.

For subscribers:From abortion to ‘defunding’ police, here are the bills that are alive and dead in the Iowa Legislature so far

How will the new law work?

The law makes it optional for Iowans to obtain a permit to carry or a permit to acquire handguns. If they choose not to get a permit, they must pass a background check when buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

Supporters say many Iowans will still apply for permits so they can carry their weapons out of state. In all, 36 states and territories, including Iowa, either recognize Iowa’s permits or do not require permits to carry firearms.

Iowans would no longer have to obtain a permit before acquiring a handgun through sales between private citizens.

Currently, there are no background checks for private handgun sales under Iowa or federal law, but opponents of the law say the permitting process ensures people purchasing handguns in private sales have undergone a background check in the past.

It would become a Class D felony to sell, rent or loan a gun to a person that the seller “knows or reasonably should know” is prohibited from owning firearms. That crime would be punishable by up to five years in prison.

Republicans have said the increased penalty will be a deterrent to illegal or questionable sales. Democrats say it will be difficult to prosecute anyone unless there was clear proof the seller knew they were selling a handgun to someone who was legally barred from owning one.

Reynolds on Friday also signed a law limiting the types of lawsuits that can be filed against gun and ammunition manufacturers. When it takes effect July 1, that law will prevent people from filing lawsuits related to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing or sale of firearms and firearms accessories. It will allow lawsuits to be brought in cases of breach of contract or where the gun or accessory was defective.

Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@registermedia.com or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on Twitter at @sgrubermiller.

Delaware Senate approves gun permit requirements and high-capacity magazine ban

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:53:35 +0000

Delaware Senate approves gun permit requirements and high-capacity magazine ban

By Mark Eichmann April 1, 2021

The Delaware Senate voted Thursday afternoon to require handgun buyers to get permits and training before making their purchases. The lawmakers also banned large magazine clips that have been frequently used in mass shootings.

Senate Bill 3 would require anyone who wants to buy a handgun to first undergo a training course and apply for a permit. Currently, only those who carry concealed weapons in Delaware are required to get training and a permit.

“It ensures that handgun owners will have undergone firearm training courses to reduce the number of accidental shootings, suicides, and gun deaths,” said the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Tizzy Lockman. “That will keep everyone that much safer.”

SB 3 passed in a 13-8 vote, with Sen. Bruce Ennis as the only Democrat to join seven Republicans in voting against the measure.

Lawmakers also approved Senate Bill 6, which makes magazines that hold more than 17 rounds illegal. Again, Ennis was the lone Democrat to vote no.

“Magazines capable of feeding 30, 40, 50, or 100 rounds of ammunition into weapons are a common thread among mass shooters in the United States,” said bill sponsor Sen. David Sokola. “The more bullets one can fire, the more death and injury one can cause.”

Both bills were part of a two-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, which drew local and national groups to make their arguments for and against the measures.

Megan O’Donnell of Wilmington was attending a country music festival in Las Vegas when a gunman opened fire, killing 59 and injuring hundreds more in 2017. Now a volunteer leader with the group Moms Demand Action, O’Donnell said a ban on high-capacity magazines could have reduced the massive number of victims at that Nevada concert.

“How many people would still be here today?” she asked committee members. “Mass shooters aiming to inflict mass casualties are specifically seeking out these magazines because they increase the number of bullets they can fire without reloading.”

Opponents of the bill like David Mellon said the magazine size limits would benefit criminals who wouldn’t abide by the law anyway.

“By limiting our capacity to defend ourselves, we’re going to be outmatched by criminals. That is just unacceptable,” Mellon said.

There was similar debate over the bill requiring permits and training for handgun purchases. Some opponents said the extra cost to get trained and buy a permit would disproportionately affect residents who make less money.

Others said people who need to protect themselves would be at risk while waiting for their permits and training to be completed. Several opponents, including Phillip Shull, pointed to a 2015 case in New Jersey in which a woman who had applied for a gun license was stabbed to death in an apparent domestic dispute.

“There are many instances of women being murdered while waiting for these permits,” Shull said. “A right delayed is a right denied, and these bills will have implications that will hurt people.”

Democratic Sen. Kyle Evans Gay challenged those who argued against the bills in that manner, saying it used women as props. “I would ask how many women have to die by gunshot wounds in the name of ‘arming women to protect themselves,’” she said.

Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University, also refuted those claims, saying permit laws have been proven to be an effective tool to reduce gun violence.

“What we find very consistently in our research is that laws requiring permits to purchase reduce homicides, suicides, mass shootings, shootings involving law enforcement officers,” he said. “We’ve found it’s a great deterrent to diverting guns for criminal use through straw purchases.”

The debate veered off the rails as Republican Sen. Dave Lawson likened the measures to actions taken as the Nazi party rose to power.

“Hitler was legal in what he did, and it was because of legislation and legislators that paved the way for that,” Lawson said. “To expect people to obey this and continue this overreach of government is asking to wake up a giant that you may not want.”

A similar effort to require permits and training for handgun purchases failed to get brought up for a vote when it was introduced in 2019. A large-capacity magazine ban also failed to see action after being introduced the same year.

One of the things both bills had in common is they were assigned to the Senate executive committee. That committee was chaired by then-Senate President Pro Tempore David McBride. McBride was upset in the Democratic primary in 2020 by progressive candidate Marie Pinkney. During the campaign, Pinkney said McBride “intentionally withheld the process of obtaining a Senate vote on these bills.”

Pinkney’s win, along with several other newcomers in the Democratic caucus, likely helped push the Senate leaders to hold votes on the floor Thursday.

“If the past two elections were a referendum on any single thing, they were a referendum on whether Delaware would pass these bills,” said Sen. Sarah McBride, another rookie in the Senate. “We each ran on a platform supporting commonsense gun reform.”

The bills also got support from state Attorney General Kathy Jennings, who spoke during Wednesday’s committee hearing.

“The status quo, a gun violence epidemic without parallel in the developed world, is simply unacceptable,” Jennings said. She called those who oppose the bills and other gun safety measures “a passionate minority of the public.”

Gov. John Carney has previously expressed support for the measures, as well.

The bills now move to the House.

Delaware Senate Ready to Vote on Additional Gun Restrictions

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:40:10 +0000

biden infrastructure plan gun control

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:23:28 +0000

Biden infrastructure plan would boost gun violence prevention groups

Proposal would directly help minorities in low-income communities, supporters say.

By Todd Ruger

Posted March 31, 2021 at 2:54pm

Advocates and veterans of local gun violence prevention programs see a great victory in the $5 billion included in President Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposal and plan to make sure Congress sees the value in what would be a historic expansion of funding for their work.

“The way that we really turn the tide on this is by investing in solutions that work, and we’ve been making this case as a coalition, as a campaign, for months and years now,” Greg Jackson of the Community Justice Action Fund said on a group call with a number of those leaders. “And it is beyond inspiring to see that we’ve finally been heard and that action is happening.”

Biden’s proposal would give the first significant federal funding for gun violence prevention programs, keep it going for eight years, and would directly help minorities in low-income communities, Antonio Cediel of the LIVE FREE Campaign said. Biden was outlining the proposal in Pittsburgh after the White House released a fact sheet on the plan.

Traditionally there have been smaller grants within the Justice Department budget, such as $10 million or $15 million at a time, and they are highly competitive, so that funding usually lasts for a short time even for the few programs that can get it, Cediel said.

Many violence prevention programs in areas with high homicide rates have strategies with good track records of success, only to struggle for money to keep going or expand, Cediel said. A mayor changes and local funding evaporates or philanthropic money dries up, “so people have been just really kind of been piecing together a little bits of money as we go,” Cediel added.

Congress might question why gun prevention would get funding in the same legislation that would invest $2 trillion in the nation’s roads, waterways, airports, electric grid and broadband. The full proposal will face political headwinds from Republicans, who say only part of the funding goes to infrastructure and criticize the tax increase needed to fund it.

The White House, in a fact sheet on the plan, included a line on the funding in a section that describes how the plan “would target workforce development opportunities in underserved communities.”

Erica Ford of LIFE Camp Inc., a program in New York City that seeks to break the cycle of violence, said the $5 billion would come inside legislation “that is going to rebuild the roads and the blocks that many of our children died on.”

“Because recovery is real, recovery for our people is real,” Ford said. “And yes, it’s jobs, but it’s a lot of hope, and therapy, and services to help heal from the generation of death and destruction.”

The funding would help secure jobs at violence prevention programs, but the results of successful violence reduction efforts would put a significant dent in the estimated $2 trillion in costs of violence and trauma in the next eight years, said Fatimah Loren Dreier of the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention.

A study from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund found that federal, state and local governments are spending a combined average of $34.8 million each day to deal with the aftermath of gun violence across the country. That totaled $280 billion a year.

“So you put that investment in upstream, you don’t have to pay for it downstream, so there’s significant economic impact to these investments,” Loren Dreier said. “There’s return on investment in terms of life and prosperity.”

And Cediel said that violence prevention has to be a key part of any broader push for economic recovery. “Certain businesses will not invest in neighborhoods because they think it’s too risky,” Cediel said. “It’s very difficult for vulnerable communities to get an economic foothold when the violence is rampant.”

Those on the call celebrated the inclusion of the funding in the bill itself as an achievement decades in the making. Anthony Smith of Cities United, which seeks to eliminate violence related to Black men and boys, said this is a crisis that needs a response just like the COVID-19 pandemic.

“So we need to move and we need to move quick. We need to be putting the pressure on Congress and others to make sure this happens,” Smith said. “We celebrate this moment where we know there’s much more work to do.”

The advocates say they will press the House and Senate to include the gun violence funding in the infrastructure bill, but that “it goes to the people on the ground and not pet projects, that it goes to the people who’ve been doing the work for years and years and years,” Ford said. “And that we use it to really break the cycle of death and trauma, and build generational wealth and generational health for our families.”

House Anti-Gunners Want Biden Executive Action on Guns

admin — Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:05:28 +0000

House Anti-Gunners Want Biden Executive Action on Guns

April 1, 2021 By Dave Workman

House Democrats led by Reps. Mike Thompson, Val Demings, Joe Neguse and Ed Perlmutter sent a letter to Joe Biden asking for “Executive Action to regulate concealable assault-style rifles, like the firearm used in the recent tragedy in Boulder, Colorado.”

According to a news release from Thompson’s office, the letter was signed by 101 of their colleagues.

CBS News is reporting the alleged killer in the Boulder mass shooting, which occurred in Neguse’s district, used a semi-auto Ruger AR-556 pistol purchased a week before the attack that left 10 people, including a Boulder police officer, dead.

The suspect, Ahmed Al Aliwi Alissa still has not provided a motive for the attack on a Boulder supermarket. His attack came a week after a Georgia man opened fire at three different spas in the Atlanta area, killing 8 people.

Here is a text of the letter, which is available at Thompson’s congressional website:

Dear President Biden,

“The House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force calls on you to take strong executive action to address serious inequities in the implementation of the National Firearms Act which is the federal law regulating the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain classes of firearms. For too long, gun manufacturers in order to circumvent the National Firearms Act have designed and marketed concealable AR-15 style firearms which fire rifle rounds.

“Concealable assault-style firearms that fire rifle rounds pose an unreasonable threat to our communities and should be fully regulated under the National Firearms Act consistent with the intent and history of the law. The recent tragedy in Boulder, Colorado where 10 people including a police officer were killed is one in a string of deadly incidents involving this style of weapon. On February 6, 2019, Milwaukee Officer Matthew Rittner was killed by an AK-47 style concealable weapon while trying to execute a search warrant. Later that year on August 4, 2019, a concealable .223 caliber AR-15 style firearm was used to kill 9 people and injure 17 others in Dayton, Ohio in less than 1 minute.

“The National Firearms Act has proven to be extremely effective in preventing crimes with the classes of particularly dangerous firearms it regulates through a system requiring a background check, submission of photo identification and fingerprints, and registration of the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The 1934 law sought to regulate certain weapons because of their frequent use in crime. Some of the features exploited by criminals and included for enhanced regulation under the NFA include, sawed off shotguns, rifles with short barrels and weapons with a high capacity of firing like machine guns.

“The concealability and ability to use ammunition capable of penetrating body armor make these firearms especially dangerous on our streets and for law enforcement personnel. We thank you for your commitment to preventing gun violence and urge you to immediately promulgate regulations to cover these concealable assault firearms under the National Firearms Act.”

CBS News is reporting the White House is “mulling executive actions on gun control.” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters last week, “Executive actions are of course an important lever that every president has at their disposal. There is current discussions and analysis internally of what steps can be taken. That has been ongoing for several weeks, even before these two recent tragedies.”

She indicated that some Republicans appear open to a “debate and a discussion.”

But grassroots gun rights activists writing on social media are apprehensive. The common complaint is that “compromise” typically means giving up some piece of their gun rights with nothing tangible in return

Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

admin — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:36:53 +0000

People view the Supreme Court building from behind security fencing on Capitol Hill in Washington, … [+] ASSOCIATED PRESS

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug.

In August 2015, 68-year-old Edward Caniglia joked to Kim, his wife of 22 years, that he didn’t use a certain coffee mug after his brother-in-law had used it because he “might catch a case of dishonesty.” That quip quickly spiraled into an hour-long argument. Growing exhausted from the bickering, Edward stormed into his bedroom, grabbed an unloaded handgun, and put it on the kitchen table in front of his wife. With a flair for the dramatic, he then asked: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tactic backfired and the two continued to argue. Eventually, Edward took a drive to cool off. But when he returned, their argument flared up once again. This time, Kim decided to leave the house and spend the night at a motel. The next day, Kim phoned home. No answer. Worried, she called the police in Cranston, Rhode Island and asked them to perform a “well check” on her husband and to escort her home. When they arrived, officers spoke with Edward on the back deck. According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.” However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day. Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone. Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them. Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads. Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglia’s case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.” Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to…provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added. In their opening brief for the Supreme Court, attorneys for Caniglia warned that “extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment” because it “would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.” That fear is not unwarranted. In jurisdictions that have extended the community caretaking exception to homes, “everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home,” a joint amicus brief by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union revealed. This expansion could also have perverse effects and disincentivize people from calling for help. As that brief noted, “When every interaction with police or request for help can become an invitation for police to invade the home, the willingness of individuals to seek assistance when it is most needed will suffer.” But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.” “The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception,” their brief stated, “but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the Justice Department felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case. As a fail-safe, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officers’ “actions did not violate any clearly established law so as to render the officers individually liable in a damages action.” But the Biden Administration, along with the courts that have extended the community caretaking exception, overlook a key component of the Fourth Amendment: the Security Clause. After all, the Fourth Amendment opens with the phrase, “the right of the people to be secure.” In an amicus brief, the Institute for Justice noted that “to the Founding generation, ‘secure’ did not simply mean the right to be ‘spared’ an unreasonable search or seizure” but also involved “harms attributable to the potential for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Expanding the community caretaking exception to “allow warrantless entries into peoples’ homes on a whim,” argued the IJ brief, “invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers” and would undermine “the right of the people to be secure” in their homes. The IJ brief further argued that extending the “community caretaking” exception to the home would “flatly contradict” the Supreme Court’s prior rulings, which “has only discussed community caretaking in the context of vehicle searches and seizures.” In those cases, “the animating purpose for the exception [was] to allow officers to remove damaged or abandoned vehicles that pose a risk to public safety.” By contrast, the IJ amicus asserted, “that justification is entirely absent” when it comes to homes. “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Joshua Windham. “A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

New Hampshire: Senate Passes Legislation to Fix Handgun Purchase Process

admin — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:24:25 +0000

Biden — ‘We must ban assault weapons!

admin — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:05:40 +0000